> It
> is for the Movement of Disabled >People to debate internally & revise >the
> language & Disabled People who >wish to debate it at a political level
>should
> do so there,
Where do we find this Movement
-- if we want to disagree with it -- ?
Judy Evans
Cardiff (UK)
----- Original Message -----
From: "Hazel V. Peasley" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Friday, July 19, 2002 10:58 AM
Subject: Re: 2003 logo
> Dear all
>
> I joined this argument latterly so there will be several points raised in
> answer to several of the contributions.
>
> First, I would say that I think the language we use is very important &
not
> because of its grammatical accuracy, rather because of its social
(including
> historical, political, economic) context & usage. It is important because
of
> issues of power & self determination more than any other. Disabled
> Person/People (there is a move, as in the Deaf community, to capitalise
the
> words in order to distinguish its use as a political statement) is a
> political statement as is the Black people, Deaf people. For me it is also
> more consistent with the Social Model.
>
> Second, I will own that I decribe myself as a person with an obvious
> impairment & a Disabled Person. The two are not synonymous.
> ************************************************************
> Sarah Supple wrote: "Yea, I guess you only need a term such as disabled
> whilst it's put in
> opposition to being 'able'. Once we move on from such categorisations and
> dichotomies we won't need it anymore, I look forward to this time."
>
> We will only need the term Disabled People whilst the oppression of people
> based on their having (whether by accident of birth or acquisition in
later
> life) an actual, perceived or reputed impairment (physical, cognitive,
> emotional, sensory, hidden or otherwise) continues & we face daily
> discrimination, barriers to our full participation in the life of our
> societies.
>
> I think that in order to resolve this issue we have to look at who is
saying
> what:-
>
> Yes, individual Disabled People will have preferences, whether that be
here
> in Britain, or the rest of Europe, or the US, or Oz, or Latin America, or
> the Arab states, or African states, or China, or India, or anywhere else I
> haven't included & when dealing with those individuals, on a one to one
> basis we hae to respect their language (though that doesn't mean we cannot
> debate it with them).
>
> However, where, in any of these states, the Movement of Disabled People
> adopt a terminology to fight the cause of Disabled People, challenging
this
> terminology in forums where we seek to redress the power imbalance, is to
> undermine Disabled People's right to self determination as a collective.
It
> is for the Movement of Disabled People to debate internally & revise the
> language & Disabled People who wish to debate it at a political level
should
> do so there, but outside adopt the current terminology of the Movement. As
> should anyone that calls themself an ally to us - irrespective of sematic,
> personal or professional differences of opinion. To do anything else is
not
> to be an ally.
> ****************************************************
> Shelley Tremain wrote "For my own part, I use the term "disabled," though
I
> think the term "people with impairments" needs to be trashed for some of
the
> same reasons that "people with disabilities" should be put to rest. I
think
> that proponents on the social model have not gone far enough with their
> critique of disability and have languished on a rather simplistic
> juridico-discursive conception of social power that does not (and cannot)
> account for the productive forms that power takes in modern liberal
> societies."
>
> The term 'juridico-discursive' is meaningless to me so totally obscured
the
> point for me without my having to go & look it up.
>
> She also wrote, "I did want to remark on the indignant and rather
> self-righteous tone adopted by some of the UK contributors to this
> discussion... It was suggested by some that those who use the term "people
> with disabilities" err in their "logic;" these UK contributors
rhetorically
> (and quite pointedly) asked whether those in the discussion who use the
term
> "people with disabilities" (and Mary E. in particular) would endorse terms
> like "people with racism" or "people with sexism". In (rhetorical?)
> response, I would like to suggest that anyone who spends any good amount
of
> time reading (social model) disability literature (popular and academic)
> that comes out of the UK can find the same sort of (apparently grievous)
> equivocation.My current favorite is the term "disability equality
training".
> I guess proponents of the social model would (on pain of logical error)
> endorse terms like: "racism equality trainer," or how about "homophobia
> equality trainer" or "classism equality training"? Shouldn't we rather
(on
> pain of logical error) want to use terms like: "racial/cultural equality
> training," "class equality training" and "sexual equality training," or
even
> better "anti-disability equality training," "anti-racist equality
training,"
> "anti-homophobia equality training"?"
>
> This 'feels' very much in the same offensive tone as she accuses the other
> contributors. It is sniping & dismissive, as are other of the responses.
If
> it isn't helpful from the protaganists of one side it isn't any more
helpful
> from the other.
>
> Many of us are in the Movement are 'dissatisfied' with the term
'impairment'
> it has negative overtones. However, until such times as we identify better
> (more accurate/positive) terms, we should, in solidarity, use the agreed
> language in public.
> ****************************************************************
> Paul Curry wrote, "I think that a lot of this is best left to how an
> individual sees themselves. I have a congenital disability. Long before I
> was a person I had what is considered (by any model) a
disability/disabling
> condition/reason for society to exclude me etc. Growing up with my
> disability has totally shaped how I see the world and how the world sees
me
> therefore, as far as I am concerned I am disabled first because that
> defines, good and bad, who I am. So, I'm a disabled person. Not proud, not
> ashamed, just me. Equally I know many people who look at it from the
point
> of being a person first (although a lot are people who have acquired
> disabilities) and that's how they see themselves. Basically I'm saying
that
> there is no right and no wrong answer to this and by trying to lump
everyone
> into a single description we risk moving away from being able to see
people
> as individuals which is what we want to
> achieve."
>
> Using this terminiology does not deny individuality, its usage is
political
> not personal. At the end of the day I want to be known as Hazel..... in
all
> my complexity, by those I relate to as an individual. When I say 'I am a
> person with an obvious impairment & a Disabled Person' I'm not introducing
> myself to people at a party, or people I meet on holiday or elsewhere.
Here
> I say, 'Hi, I'm Hazel'. It's what I choose to use when I am in a forum
where
> need to assert that I am representing Disabled People & am seeking to be
> heard as such & to endorse my commitment to the Movement of Disabled
People.
> It is an expression of solidarity & political identity.
> *****************************************************
> Timothy Lillie wrote, "You assert that using "people with disabilities" is
> oppressive while "disabled people" is empowering, if I understand you. I
> have to confess that this looks to me like a distinction without a
> difference and a shibboleth of Biblical proportions."
>
> Again the term 'shibboleth' (also used elsewhere in the debate) is
> meaningless to me so rather makes reduces my understanding of your
meaning.
> I understand it to be a 'put down' anyway.
>
> There are major differences between the language used in North America &
> Britain (I will support the language adopted by the Movement of Disabled
> People there if that is what it is & we can enjoy comradely debates about
> context & meaning to better understand each other - though there are terms
> that if used here in Britain are deeply offensive not only to ardent
> supporters of the Movement - anything with 'handicapped' or 'retardation'
> amongst them).
>
> You assert that "what counts is what happens in the lives of people with
> disabilities".
>
> I would put it to you the language used about us DOES count & is part of
> what 'happens' in our lives & has been & continues to be used to maintain
us
> in postitions of powerlessness.
>
> Elsewhere you have noted that the term 'disabled person' is offensive to
> some individuals. I accept that - largely because to be a 'disabled
person'
> (lower case) is to be second-class or third-class or even lesser. The
thing
> here is not to further oppress them as individuals by insisting they call
> themselves that, rather provide opportunities for their empowerment &
> involvement in the Movement & engagement in the debate about language.
>
>
> Here endeth my contribution!
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Hazel Peasley
> A World of Difference
> Diversity Enriches
>
> Tel/Fax 023 8077 7113
> Mobile 07775 741696
>
> Any files attached to this e-mail will have been checked with virus
> detection software prior to transmission, but you should carry out your
own
> virus check before opening any attachment. The contents of this e-mail
and
> any attachments are the property of A World of Difference and are intended
> for the confidential use by the named recipient(s) only. They should not
be
> communicated to, or relied upon, by any other party without my written
> consent. If you are not the addressee please notify me immediately at the
> address below or by e-mail to [log in to unmask]
>
> ________________End of message______________________
>
> Archives and tools for the Disability-Research Discussion List
> are now located at:
>
> www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/disability-research.html
>
> You can JOIN or LEAVE the list from this web page.
>
________________End of message______________________
Archives and tools for the Disability-Research Discussion List
are now located at:
www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/disability-research.html
You can JOIN or LEAVE the list from this web page.
|
